close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20110106063128/http://itself.wordpress.com:80/category/book-discussion-group/

Who wants to DIG into The Tunnel? Who wants to let loose some Gass? Huh? Anybody?

I have recently been on something of a “contemporary novel kick.” While I typically incline toward novels by dead white men, I’ve been reading a lot of stuff by white men who are in fact still quite young. Books like Gary Shteyngart’s Absurdistan, David Mitchell’s The Thousand Autumns of Jacob de Zoet, and Jonathan Franzen’s Freedom (which I started reading this afternoon over lunch). (Oh wait, there has been one living white woman, too — Lorrie Moore’s A Gate at the Stairs.) There are things one could say about all of these. Indeed, I know of many a blog and/or magazine dedicated to doing as much. But for our purposes here, I feel like they perhaps need a little more time — or, to be honest, perhaps it is merely I who need more time to know what to say about them. But for the sake of a self-indulgent gravitas, we’ll condemn these works to their present youth and insist for now that they “grow up a little” before we include them at this table peopled (mostly) by those under 35. There is heady stuff afoot here, as you know, and the church must first be thought out of its imperial impasse and Milbank put in his place. Read the rest of this entry »

Book Discussion Group: Kleinzeit, 4

 

I finished my second reading of Kleinzeit while sitting on a bed in the ER.  It was my second visit with Hospital in as many weeks.  I was waiting for Specialist to arrive because the Hobanesque symptoms I had been experiencing for the last month were baffling all the other doctors (as they would baffle Specialist and Assistant).  Sister was nowhere to be found, but three doctors took turns independently finger-fucking my asshole (to check my prostate, they said) so that’s got to count for something.  (Why is it that they all pat you on the hip after they finish?  Is that something they get taught in med school?  It’s as though they were letting me know that, hey, if I wasn’t a great lay, at least I was an obedient one and tried real hard to be good.)

Read the rest of this entry »

Book Discussion Group: Kleinzeit, 3

Normally I don’t talk about novels in public. Compared to the work of others, like Robert’s like past post or Brad’s ruminations, my reflections rarely say much. Novels are, for me, an intensely reflective experience. They resonate with me rather than how I understand myself socially. Reading novels for me might even be a very narcissistic activity. Even when I suggest novels to friends I do so furtively, perhaps hoping to make a connection that I normally cannot make. All of this, cloyingly earnest as it likely sounds, seems apt with regard to Kleinzeit. While I agree with Brad that this is not really a psychological novel it is, in a sense, a secular Kierkegaardian novel. Read the rest of this entry »

Book Discussion Group: Kleinzeit, 2

Kleinzeit touched the paper with the brush, drew in one smooth sweep a fat black circle, sweet and round.

That’s it, said Death. My present.

The first and, probably, recurring item that must be addressed by a reader of Kleinzeit is how to understand the Big Guys. The Big Guys are such characters as Sky, Death, Hospital, Underground/Underworld, God, Glockenspiel, Yellow Paper. Often they speak to Kleinzeit, to Sister, to Redbeard. Sometimes they do things on their own, as when Glockenspiel wonders when it will be played in the underground, before Kleinzeit has dreamed or encountered it. One way of understanding this — which Brad has broached in his post — is that Hoban is “unshackling” objects, in a sense, from their correlationist shackles: making them, simply put, characters rather than accessories and scenery. Certainly they are characters — for instance, I would say Hospital, Underground, and Death are as well-rounded as Redbeard — but I find it difficult to believe that we can understand this to be an object-oriented novel. On the contrary, I would make the case that it’s a supremely human-centered novel, one that enters the solipsistic world of those “characters” we breathe to life with our own words: when we curse the table that stubbed our toe, chat with ourselves, pray, resent the building where we lie sick, or communicate with the instrument we play best.

Read the rest of this entry »

Book Discussion Group: Kleinzeit

I exist, said the mirror.
What about me? said Kleinzeit
Not my problem, said the mirror.
(p. 7)

I always love it when the first page of a novel paves the way for the all that follows. These are very nearly the first words of Kleinzeit, and already Russell Hoban has laid out where he is going and more or less how he is going to get there. As becomes clearer still in subsequent pages, we find that his is going to be a path of not-quite blank sheets of A-4 paper lead leads us to places that are, in a sense, familiarly foreign. We encounter diseases unlike any we’ve heard of before and that are identified by words whose otherwise recognizable referents do not at all match up with what is being described. Hypotenuse. Hendiadys. And even the (fat) human condition (aka, “chronic ullage”) (p. 34). Deadly stuff, these, it turns out, so it behooves us to be on guard of the symptoms: for Kleinzeit, the flash of pain to make Pythagoras proud, from A to B, coupled with  the “seething in a perfectly silent room” (p. 12).

Read the rest of this entry »

Book Discussion Group: Kleinzeit

Today we officially begin, with relatively little fanfare, I confess, a new book discussion group. After the long, hard, nearly interminably slog through William Gaddis’ The Recognitions last year, we thought we’d go with something … not necessarily accessible, but, let’s say instead, simply, shorter. So it came to pass that we chose Russell Hoban’s 1974 novel Kleinzeit.

The novel, I will be the first to admit, is not for everyone. I expect it may well be divisive even here. I’ve already corresponded with one of the contributors to this group who did not especially like. (More from him later.) There was another person in the comments of a post in which we were hashing out our decision, Ben, I think it was, who scorned it (the book, not the decision) as well. Perhaps you won’t like it either.

Read the rest of this entry »

Book Discussion Group: Kleinzeit

BERJAYAWith summer escaping so quickly, I thought I should better seize this unclaimed moment to see if anybody was still interested in reading & discussing Russell Hoban’s divisive, but delightfully brief, novel Kleinzeit. It is less than 200 pages, so surely we can power through it quite quickly, if we have a collective mind to do so. In two weeks, say?

If you’re interested, I was hoping that we might be able to give four or five posts to it. Ideally, each written by four or five different contributors. No summary, of course. We’re far more creative than that, I hope. Personal reactions, maybe; complaints, even; pale imitations; literary masterpieces; a compare & contrast essay — really, however you want to roll.

Before we get ahead of ourselves with such details, though, we should probably suss out whether any of you lot are interested. Otherwise, you’re stuck with me again. Let me know in the comments so we can get the ball rolling before a new school term kicks off.

Vibrant Matter Reading Group: Chapter 7 “Political Ecologies”

My apologies for not getting this reflection up earlier this week. I have been working on a chapter all week that has taken up most of my time and writing energy. Adrian has posted some reflections concerning this chapter at his place. I’ll try not to repeat too much of what he has already said.

Bennett claims up front that this chapter has two goals. The first is a description of what Darwin called “small agencies”, the power of things we don’t give much attention to “make big things happen”. She focuses in on two worm stories, of how worms play a vital role in the ecosystem. The second goal is to deal with the problem of the political capacity of these small agencies or, to use Latour’s term, “actants”. The worm stories are interesting, especially to see Darwin himself ascribing certain non-mechanistic quality to the actions of the worms. The second one has to do with a particular group of worms in the Amazonian rainforest that changed the conditions of the border between the savanna and the forest, essentially redrawing the boundary (Bennett doesn’t say this, but in ecology this is called an ecotone). An interesting story for those who think only humans, or human predominately, have the ability to change ecosystems. Read the rest of this entry »

Requiescat in pace: David Markson; followed by a Book Discussion announcement

This is obviously a little belated. We don’t commemorate too many deaths here, and I probably would not have done so in this instance either if I had not been reminded of this very fine passage from David Markson’s wonderful novel Going Down. It just felt, I don’t know, for lack of a better word, appropriate.

Read the rest of this entry »

Vibrant Matter Reading Group: Chapter 6 “Stem Cells and the Culture of Life”

This week we’ll be hosting the cross-blog reading group on Jane Bennett’s Vibrant Matter: A Political Ecology of Things. I must confess from the start that I have been a bad conversation partner, I found it difficult to keep up with the initial flurry of posts at Philosophy in a Time of Error and then fell behind due to activities of shameless self-promotion. There has been a sense from some participants that the book should have caused more discussion at the various blogs and I want to say something about that before I move to the summary of this chapter (the next summary will be posted either Wednesday or Thursday).

For me Bennett’s book presents very few ideas I don’t already agree with and it is presented in a very lucid style. For me this often results in a strange deflation. Whereas when I read someone whose work is presented in a more difficult idiom, say Deleuze (whom she draws on), or when I read someone with whom I disagree quite a bit, say Badiou, I feel spurred to more productive interactions with that text. This isn’t really a fault of Bennett’s though, it is my own particular “ecology of reading”. What I also find disappointing about engaging with a book that ultimately is putting forward a perspective I already agree with (and ultimately Bennett’s book is about a perspective) is that it doesn’t involve my moving forward to deal with particular problems within that perspective (and Bennett’s book is not really about those problems, though I would like to see her deal with some of them using the same intellectual ease she presents the perspective). This was most apparent for me in the “Edible Matter” chapter, where she doesn’t really come forward with much to say on the inherent issues with choosing which “vibrant matter” to eat, while I appreciate (but already thought and agree with) the attention given to the inherent power of eating things, meaning that nothing we eat is ever simply “dead matter”, she doesn’t go into the discussion that critical animal studies folks and philosophical ecology folks need to have. I wonder if, simply put, this is a book written for people who hold to a certain mechanistic account of the universe and the things that populate it as well as for strong humanists who themselves do not deal with the inherent problems in their perspective, rather than for people who already in some way or another hold to a vital materialism (or to its precursor, critical vitalism). Read the rest of this entry »